2000 (6) TMI 108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Member (T)]. - When these two applications seeking stay and waiver of the penalties was argued by Shri Prakash Shah Advocate, it appeared that the issue being small and well defined, the main appeals themselves could be taken up for disposal. This was done after hearing Shri V.K. Choubey the ld. DR for the Revenue. 2. The facts being common and the appellants being the same these appeals are b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng from him at the end of such month or rupees five thousand, whichever is greater. 4. In the instant case in discharging said burden for March, 1999, there was a delay of one day for part of the amount and two days for the remaining amount. In the case of April, 1999 there was delay of one day. The Assistant Commissioner in his order observed that the assessees had already deposited the intere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....igh quantum of penalty is the issue involved. 5. Shri Shah submits that the wording of the sub-rule (5) of Rule 96ZQ does not indicate that the penalty is mandatorily to be imposed as equal to the amount delayed in payment. He submits that the language of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is more specific suggesting imposition of mandatory penalty. He refers to the judgment of the Tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The language used in the said section is that "the person liable who is to pay duty……. shall be liable to pay interest ……….". The wording used in the rule before us is "he shall be liable to……, a penalty". There is an essential distinction in the manner in which the rule has been framed from the manner in which the section has been framed. Even when section suggests the mandatory nat....